No way. Only reason..ONLY reason there is any gray area is because it's the stupid basketball hall of fame and not the NBA Hall of Fame. Contributions to the game, blah blah blah. He is not the elite of elite and that's pretty much final.

Dominique averaged 25+ points per game for 10 consecutive seasons, including a 30.7 ppg season. Dominique was a lock based on this alone. I guess Vince has olympic gold, and rookie of the year under his belt, but I think he has no shot in hell unless he gets into broadcasting or something like that

If only slam magazine had influence on who made it into the hall, Iverson, Tmac, and Vince would be first ballot

Can't we just make like a ______ will be in the hall of fame thread and every few pages somebody dumb suggests a player that has no shot or stupidly brings up a player that hasn't been in the league nearly long enough and is just a prisoner of the moment?

No, he's not making the HOF. He's the one of the best dunkers we've seen to ever play the game. During his prime years, he could score with the best of them. Not to mention his clutchness is unmatched. But his career accoclades don't match up with a HOF career.

While I'm glad he put Toronto on the basketball map, I'd say no. And this is coming from someone who pretty much had a man-crush on him during Vinsanity: jerseys, posters, shoes, trading cards, magazines...my friends were worried.

Yeah he was a flashy dunker, to this day still the greatest. But he didn't do enough in his overall career to warrent HOF status.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5am6oody72

More like the Hall of Lame.

Can't believe how hard I laughed at that one, definitely in the "so bad it's good AWESOME" category

No, he's not making the HOF. He's the one of the best dunkers we've seen to ever play the game. During his prime years, he could score with the best of them. Not to mention his clutchness is unmatched. But his career accoclades don't match up with a HOF career.

81 Percent chance is not as bad as you guys in here are saying. Then again the sports knowledge in the S&T forum as a whole is pretty suspect. This forum is built on homerism and hate...you can rarely find an nice objective based discussion in here.

Hall of Fame Probability

Introduction

What statistics or accomplishments have the Hall
of Fame voters deemed to be most important? This question can be
answered using a technique called logistic regression. The logistic
regression model is a binary response model where the response is
classified as either a "success" (in this case, being elected to the Hall
of Fame) or a "failure" (not being elected to the Hall of Fame). One or
more predictor variables are selected and the resulting model can be used
to predict the probability of a success given certain values of the
predictor(s).

Building the Model

For the Hall of Fame problem, I tried to use as many predictor variables as
I could think of, but I did not use statistics that have not been kept for
most of the NBA's history (e.g., steals). My player pool consisted of
players who had played a minimum of 400 NBA games and had been eligible
for at least one Hall of Fame election. After trying numerous models, my
final model had seven predictor variables:

height (in inches)

last season indicator (1 if 1959-60 or before, 0 otherwise)

NBA points per game

NBA rebounds per game

NBA assists per game

NBA All-Star game selections

NBA championships won

All of the predictors listed above were significant at the 0.05 level.
Other than height, all of the predictors had positive coefficients. ABA
statistics, honors, and championships were not important predictors of
Hall of Fame status, which is why I only used NBA statistics in my final
model. I don't like ignoring the ABA statistics, but that's what the
voters have apparently done. Keep in mind that my goal was not to
determine who <="" span=""> in the Hall of
Fame, but rather who is likely to be in
the Hall of Fame.

The table below gives the parameter estimates of the coefficients for each
of the seven predictors:

height -0.1771
last season indicator 3.1498
NBA points per game 0.3433
NBA rebounds per game 0.4193
NBA assists per game 0.3327
NBA All-Star game selections 0.5626
NBA championships won 0.9151

Example

The parameter estimates given in the previous section can be used to obtain
the predicted probability of Hall of Fame election for a particular
player. I will go through an example using Jo Jo White. Find the values of the
seven predictor variables for White, multiply them by the coefficients
given in the table above, and find the sum of the products:

To find the predicted probability of Hall of Fame election, do the
following:

P(HoF election) = 1 / (1 + e**(-(1.6951)))
= 0.845

Based on Jo Jo White's statistics and accomplishments, the probability that
he has been elected to the Hall of Fame is 0.845.

Summary

Hall of Fame probabilities are presented for all players with a minimum of
400 NBA games played. Although it can be risky to make predictions for
active players, you can think of these probabilities as answering the
question "If this player retired today, what is the probability he would
be elected to the Hall of Fame?". The model was built using a pool of 750
players. One method to assess classification accuracy is to compare the
estimated Hall of Fame probability for the case to the actual result. Of
the 750 players, 89 had been elected to the Hall of Fame and 661 had not.
If the player's predicted probability of election was greater than or
equal to 0.5, I predicted that he was in the Hall of Fame. Of the 89
players in the Hall of Fame, 74 were correctly classified (83.1%) and 15
were not (16.9%). Of the 661 players not in the Hall of Fame, 651 were
correctly classified (98.5%) and 10 were not (1.5%). Overall, 725 of the
750 players (96.7%) were correctly classified by the model.

81 Percent chance is not as bad as you guys in here are saying. Then again the sports knowledge in the S&T forum as a whole is pretty suspect. This forum is built on homerism and hate...you can rarely find an nice objective based discussion in here.

Basketball reference should be used for stats only.

So you mean to tell me VC has a 10% better chance than TP and 23% better chance than Nash of getting in the HOF? That formula makes rebounds and assists equal for all players regardless of position, that shouldn't be. Plus, All-Star games? All-Star game selections, the biggest popularity contest in the world? Individual statistics thrown out the window completely, just a team statistic like championships calculated? No college mention at all (it's the basketball HOF not NBA HOF). I know you always like to dump on S&T's knowledge but that is a flawed percentage to use as the base of your argument.

I think he will make the hall of fame. In his prime he was one of the best players at his position for several years, gold medalist, greatest dunker in NBA history, put a horrible franchise on the basketball map, etc. You dont NEED a championship or mvp to make the hall of fame.

Dominique averaged 25+ points per game for 10 consecutive seasons, including a 30.7 ppg season. Dominique was a lock based on this alone. I guess Vince has olympic gold, and rookie of the year under his belt, but I think he has no shot in hell unless he gets into broadcasting or something like that

If only slam magazine had influence on who made it into the hall, Iverson, Tmac, and Vince would be first ballot

Dog, Iverson IS a first ballot HOFer though.

I sure hope so, I really do. I just know that stern hates his guts so maybe he could prevent him from getting there so easy. But yeah I can't see a former MVP not gettting in

That formula is a bit flawed, dontcha think? No player on that list is more glaring than Steve Nash: only a 58% chance for a two-time MVP, and below guys like CP and T-Mac? Ask 100 people if Nash gets in the Hall and we're gonna get a lot more than 59 votes (I realized that's not how the % works, but you get the idea).

Can't we just make like a ______ will be in the hall of fame thread and every few pages somebody dumb suggests a player that has no shot or stupidly brings up a player that hasn't been in the league nearly long enough and is just a prisoner of the moment?

81 Percent chance is not as bad as you guys in here are saying. Then again the sports knowledge in the S&T forum as a whole is pretty suspect. This forum is built on homerism and hate...you can rarely find an nice objective based discussion in here.
Chauncey should be in the top 15 on that list.

He didn't ruin any squads during his prime. As of the past few years he hasn't been great, but in his prime he made his teams much better. I'm sure you saw how bad the raptors and nets became after he left.